A Taxonomic Odyssey: Evolution, Criticisms, and Future Directions of Driving Automation Taxonomies – The Case of SAE J3016

• This study explores various stakeholder perspectives on driving automation taxonomies. • Taxonomies shape design, regulation and public expectations, not just system labels. • Experts need multidimensional labels; users need a few clear driving modes. • Variations in taxonomy interpretation among stakeholders can hinder the deployment and regulation of automated vehicles. • Even with SAE J3016 critiques and new proposals, achieving a perfect taxonomy is difficult due to inherent limitations. While the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International’s classification system (J3016) has provided a framework for categorising sustained driving automation systems, concerns have arisen about its clarity and ability to incorporate emerging technologies . Therefore, this study explores how various stakeholders, including end users, vehicle manufacturers, and policymakers, use the driving automation taxonomy. The results show that driving automation taxonomy is communicated through media, incorporated into vehicle purchasing decisions for users, and utilised for external and internal communication by vehicle manufacturers and policymakers. The discussion highlights that utilising specialised terminology in automation enhances communication efficiency. However, there is also a discrepancy between the SAE J3016, which is today’s prevalent taxonomy, and their audience in terms of both (1) clarity provided by the taxonomy vs. understanding of the stakeholders and (2) topics addressed by the taxonomy vs. needs of the stakeholders. The study also highlights that, while SAE J3016 is being criticised, proposing a clearly better taxonomy is far from straightforward. However, we underscore the importance of revising and updating the current taxonomy to align with stakeholder needs and technological advancements. By enhancing the clarity and relevance of the driving automation taxonomy, stakeholders can make more informed decisions, fostering innovation and improving communication across the industry.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Published
2026-01-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2026.101858
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Taxonomic Odyssey: Evolution, Criticisms, and Future Directions of Driving Automation Taxonomies – The Case of SAE J3016

Óscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, Fjollë Novakazi, Ilse M. Harms, Elisabeth Shi et al.
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
article

A Taxonomic Odyssey: Evolution, Criticisms, and Future Directions of Driving Automation Taxonomies – The Case of SAE J3016

Óscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, Fjollë Novakazi, Ilse M. Harms, Elisabeth Shi, Soyeon Kim
article en

Abstract

• This study explores various stakeholder perspectives on driving automation taxonomies. • Taxonomies shape design, regulation and public expectations, not just system labels. • Experts need multidimensional labels; users need a few clear driving modes. • Variations in taxonomy interpretation among stakeholders can hinder the deployment and regulation of automated vehicles. • Even with SAE J3016 critiques and new proposals, achieving a perfect taxonomy is difficult due to inherent limitations. While the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International’s classification system (J3016) has provided a framework for categorising sustained driving automation systems, concerns have arisen about its clarity and ability to incorporate emerging technologies . Therefore, this study explores how various stakeholders, including end users, vehicle manufacturers, and policymakers, use the driving automation taxonomy. The results show that driving automation taxonomy is communicated through media, incorporated into vehicle purchasing decisions for users, and utilised for external and internal communication by vehicle manufacturers and policymakers. The discussion highlights that utilising specialised terminology in automation enhances communication efficiency. However, there is also a discrepancy between the SAE J3016, which is today’s prevalent taxonomy, and their audience in terms of both (1) clarity provided by the taxonomy vs. understanding of the stakeholders and (2) topics addressed by the taxonomy vs. needs of the stakeholders. The study also highlights that, while SAE J3016 is being criticised, proposing a clearly better taxonomy is far from straightforward. However, we underscore the importance of revising and updating the current taxonomy to align with stakeholder needs and technological advancements. By enhancing the clarity and relevance of the driving automation taxonomy, stakeholders can make more informed decisions, fostering innovation and improving communication across the industry.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary PerspectivesVol. 36
Federal Highway Administration (US), Örebro University (SE), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NL), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.